Talk:Aiphanes/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC) test — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.69.28.104 (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. I'll make (what I think are) uncontroversial edits as I read the article, and bring anything else up here. Feel free to revert or discuss any changes that have inadvertently altered meaning, or that you just don't like. Hope to have some comments up in a couple of days.

Ok, I did a copyedit, please review the changes and make sure you agree with them. Overall, I thought the article was quite good and easy to read. I have a few comments I've listed below, and will revisit later to check sources, and perform a lit search to see if there's any other info that might be worth including. Sasata (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Guettarda (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• 1st paragraph of history needs a ref (or just combine it with short second paragraph if source is the same)
  • Done Guettarda (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• "Aiphanes, coined by German botanist Carl Ludwig Willdenow in 1801." missing part of the sentence?
  • Fixed Guettarda (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• "Jacquin had used the name Caryota horrida to describe a species that belonged to the same species (and possibly the same individual) described by Willdenow." Is it correct usage to say "belonged to a species"? Haven't heard that before.
  • Meant "individual" or "plant". Guettarda (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• any comment on the discrepancy between the species count of Burret (32 + 15 later) and Borschenius and Bernal (22). What happened to 25 species? Did they not include those destroyed in WWII? Did they only include taxa for which they could examine herbarium vouchers?
  • Tried to clarify. Does this help? Guettarda (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Excellent. Sasata (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Aiphanol, a compound isolated from A. horrida has shown significant inhibitory activity against cyclooxygenases." Maybe add a little more context to let the reader know why this might be important.
  • Copied the importance from the cyclooxygenase article. Now I have to find a non-Wikipedian source for that. Guettarda (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Done. Guettarda (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Borchsenius ref needs page numbers
  • Done. Or do you think I should treat the monograph as a book at add page numbers for each ref? Guettarda (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    • If it were a normal sized journal article I'd say no, but in this case anyone wanting to verify what's in the article (like me for example) is going to have to do a lot of hunting and clicking :) Sasata (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, done. Guettarda (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

continued

• Having now done my own database search, I'm pretty confident that the article does a good job of using the available scholarly resources. I only found one thing you might want to mention: according to Lee et al. (2001. "A Novel Cyclooxygenase-Inhibitory Stilbenolignan from the Seeds of Aiphanes aculeata", Org. Lett., 2001, 3 (14), pp 2169–2171), aiphanol is also present in A. aculeata.
  • A. aculeata is a synonym of A. horrida. See second and third para of Aiphanes#History. Guettarda (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see. Sometimes I have a memory like a sieve. I'm not knowledgeable about plant taxonomy and am wondering how reliable the Kew checklist site is as an authority on this. The reason I ask is I cannot find any reference to the name Aiphanes horrida in a database search, whereas A. aculeata is used in sources dating up to 2006 (Bernal, R; Galeano, G. Endangerment of Colombian palms (Arecaceae): change over 18 years. BOTANICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY Volume: 151 Issue: 1 Pages: 151-163) and 2009 (James, Arlington. Notes on the Uses of Dominica's Native Palms. Palms Volume: 53 Issue: 2 Pages: 61-67 Published: JUN 2009). Is there another source you have which could confirm Kew's suggested synonymy? Sasata (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
      • The Kew list is pretty authoritative, as far as I can tell. Some other evidence: Borchsensius uses it in 2008[1], Bernal in 2008[2], Tomlinson, Fisher and Lewis use it in 2009[3]. There's no bigger name than Tomlinson in the world of palm anatomy. Fisher is another giant. While Lewis is a leading up-and-comer.

        The issue at hand is the publication date for Jacquin's name. Older sources give it as 1809, but at some point (~2006, I'm guessing) someone decided that it was actually published earlier, changing the basionym. Mind you, the Missouri Botanical Garden still uses an 1809 publication date[4] despite being aware of the 2008 usage by Borchsenius. Unfortunately, I haven't found the source which re-evaluated the publication date for Jacquin. Guettarda (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Might be worth considering putting this into a footnote

• please fatten the lead a bit. A couple of sentences summarizing the history section would do the trick.
• not sure why current ref #4 is there (duplicate refs to the same article)?
  • Forgot to remove it when I changed the refs. Guettarda (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've fact-checked several of the citations, and everything looks good. I'll place the article on hold until the lead gets filled out. Sasata (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, promoting. Hope you're in the Wikicup for a long time so that you'll write more plant articles :) Sasata (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Clearly written, does a good job of explaining botanical jargon. Largely complies with MoS, but lead should be expanded to mention history and habitat/ecology.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):

   Article has appropriate citations, and all are to reliable sources. Random spot check of several sources turned up nothing amiss.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Coverage is reasonable for a genus-level GA. Overview of species given in separate list article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images have appropriate creative commons licenses.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: